> The same day as the court’s ruling, DeSantis signed into law two bills affecting law enforcement in Florida. Two judges on the panel that issued the ruling Friday were DeSantis appointees.
> One new law makes it illegal after a person has been warned to approach first responders or remain within 25 feet while they are performing a legal duty if the intent is to interfere, threaten or harass them. The new law doesn’t prevent people from recording law enforcement but can require them to move 25 feet back, which can make it more difficult.
> The other requires that citizen review boards in Florida – intended to provide independent oversight of law enforcement actions – be re-established so that members are appointed by a sheriff or police chief and that at least one member be a retired law enforcement officer.
I wonder if the first will stand up to Constitutional review. I imagine there are many First Amendment protected purposes for recording that may require the recorder to be within 25 feet of the officer. For example, if they're recording during windy conditions and need to hear what the officer says. I also wonder how the "intent" will be interpreted by courts. Probably in a way that is most favorable to LEOs.
The second law is just a straightforward neutering of citizen review boards.
The first is an absolute farce. All an officer who doesn't want to be recorded needs to do is get in your face (or have his partner get in your face) - at which point, you are now recording within 25 feet of an officer, and must either stop, or face arrest.
If you take a few steps back, he can, of course, repeat this process ad-infinitum.
Sure, you can argue this in a Florida court, and you might even win, but in the meantime, the law accomplishes exactly what it intends.
> I wonder if the first will stand up to Constitutional review. I imagine there are many First Amendment protected purposes for recording that may require the recorder to be within 25 feet of the officer.
It may be possible to stand 25ft back and hold a 15ft long pole with a camera, or place a phone/camera on the ground and then stand back, to get past this issue.
> Probably in a way that is most favorable to LEOs.
I think this makes sense. Would be bad if every time a police officer tries to stop a crime, suddenly 20 hard of hearing people need to crowd around him really close in order to record him. Oh look, the criminal got away again. There are situations where different laws will conflict, and I hope in those situations crime prevention and safety take precedence.
Modern phone cameras are really good and 25 feet isn't very far. Seems like a good compromise so that cops can do their jobs but there can be some citizen oversight.
Apparently all that's required to make recording a phone call legal is to play a 3 second recorded message saying "This call may be recorded for quality and training purposes" because that's what every corporation does. They don't ask, or verify consent. Why can't I do that on my phone? I will happily have my phone say "This call may be recorded" before every call I pick up, so that every call can be recorded.
Fun times, try telling those same corporations that you're recording the call. I've yet to have any proceed other than (politely, but promptly) disconnecting the call.
The idea is that if you don't consent you hang up after hearing the message.
Funnily, the phrasing "may be recorded" is not interpreted by the corporations as "the customer may be recording as well" and in many cases their default policy is to not talk to you if you've declared you're recording. Single-party consent jurisdictions make it even more muddy.
I love how they dress it up as "may be recorded", as if whenever you hear that message there's a small chance the recording isn't sitting in some S3 bucket.
Always be in the habit of saying “me too” to the robot that plays that message. Then it’s not even deceptive, you clearly stated to the other “party” that you are recording. Not your problem if the other end wasn’t listening because they made you talk to a poorly built robot.
This reminds me of an old idea I called Reverse MFA where the person you're talking to over the phone must provide a valid 6 digit number before you give out personal details like birthday, SSN, etc.
Google Voice can record calls if you press 4. A voice comes on and says so.
Only a couple times have I used it on purpose, but it has triggered on me accidentally a handful of times over the years, usually in weird situations like in my car (older cars, with Bluetooth-only car phone systems). Makes everybody nervous, myself included.
When you do get a live person, you can say that you do not consent to be recorded. When I’ve done this the person on the other end claims to stop recording.
I am not a lawyer or something, but maybe, saying "By continuing, you agree to have the call recorded for quality and training purposes" makes more sense? It's technically verifying the consent, I guess.
I think this is an interesting decision for a two party consent state. Typically in a two party consent state all private conversations cannot be recorded unless both parties agree to have it recorded. This means it is illegal to secretly record a private conversation. However, the judge ruled that “conversations concerned matters of public business, occurred while the deputies were on duty, and involved phones utilized for work purposes.” have no expectation of privacy.
As someone living in a two party consent state that is not Florida I am curious if this precedent will carry weight in my home state.
> Waite was separately convicted of battery on a law enforcement officer and resisting arrest with violence after he was accused of striking a deputy with his elbow when they arrived to arrest him on the wiretapping charges.
> Waite surrendered after a detective shocked him with an electrical device.
> “Waite did not demonstrate a lack of good faith and should have complied without resorting to violence,” the judges said.
Love this double standard. Armed men can show up at your door, shackle your wrists behind your back, and haul you off to a cage, all in bad faith, but if you resort to meeting violence with violence, you're the one who gets sentenced.
The institution of uniformed police forces is relatively recent, established in the 1800s, and it reflects an 1800s era sensibility towards crime. In that it is predominantly focused on protecting the property interests of the wealthy. (The original police forces grew out of a desire to socialize the costs of protecting merchant investments -- the warehouses and docks and factories in much of the world, and slaves held as property in the south of the U.S.)
Prior to uniformed police, communities maintained order themselves -- often through night watches in which everyone participated, or eventually through hiring people to "cover my watch".
Police in the modern era have been used as a threat of violence against common people more or less since their inception in the 1800s, from slave patrols to strikebreaking. They've been used as political assassins killing the political opponents of the state (see Frederick Hampton) to the systematic oppression of gay and trans people (see, for instance, Stonewall inn). Lest these feel like old examples, just this year police shut down a gay bar in Seattle for having "indecent apparel" being worn by the gay men in attendance.
I think it's absolutely fair for people to think critically about the history and legacy of the institution and wonder, is this the best institution we can imagine to fill this role? Are there better ways to imagine the roles it fills today? Are there systemic issues that need fixing with it?
The reason I bring this forward is that any thoughtful critique of the institution is often painted broadly as, "you are just an anarchist who cannot think beyond your slogans!" Perhaps the institution could do with some immiseration.
So what's the penalty for not moving back 25 feet? Death?
Seems like officers in the USA have carte blanche to just shoot the crap out of anyone not complying with their 'lawful' orders - whatever the hell lawful means these days.
I think this is a good thing. The government could record you without your consent, the citizen should be allowed to as well. I understand police need warrants, but what is the citizen to do? Especially when so many courts, judges, and juries take the word of police over the citizen.
Legally the government can’t record you without your consent.
In public, you have no expectation of privacy - so anyone can film anyone, government or non-government. That would be most police activity. Any other police activity - such as when raiding a home - would be subject to standard legal review in terms of admission into discovery and whatnot.
This makes sense cause the public official doesn't have an expectation of privacy when they are performing their official duties. That makes sense. Nothing they should be doing when they are conversing with a member of the public should be private to them (unless it is private to the person they are talking to - and if it's private to someone else then they probably shouldn't be sharing it with the person recording).
“Waite emailed his recording of the call to the sheriff's office records department and requested an internal investigation. A month later, Waite was accused of five counts of illegal wiretapping for recording the conversation with the sergeant and four other calls with sheriff’s employees.“
That reminded me of a case where an employee was recording their coworker sleeping through the night shift, and it was the employee recording that got into trouble because recording a video (or audio) is against the rules. Nothing happened to the employee sleeping through the night shift. Crazy. What to even do in such cases, really? The recording was just proof or evidence, otherwise it would have been one employee's words against the other.
A classic Florida move of one step forwards and two back. Sure you can record law enforcement now but the review boards will be stocked with people hand picked by the sheriff when you go to complain about their abuses.
That's the same as one-party consent (that is, one of the parties having the conversation, not random passersby), which in the US applies federally as well as in about 3/4 of the states.
But most states - whether one-party or two-party - do not require consent to record a broad swathe of exceptions (particularly extortion, but not just that). Exact laws vary quite a bit - honestly one of the worst things about America is how different laws (of all sorts) can be in different jurisdictions.
Sometimes in a private conversation I will say things I would not want the public to hear me say. In places where there is one party consent it requires much more trust to have these types of private conversations, because any conversation could be recorded and placed on twitter.
For example, I think it's awful that in some places it's legal to privately tell you friend about a mental health struggle you are having, and for that friend to, without your knowledge, share a recording of that conversation with other people. In my mind two party consent is a basic data-privacy law. You cannot create a record of something you expected to be private. You can have an expectation of a private conversation to be private.
> “As soon as I grabbed his arms to put him under arrest, to put them behind his back, that’s when I catch an elbow to my face, to my lower right jaw,” said Glaze, the deputy who arrested Waite.
I would love to know how the deputy is grabbing arms. I mean try this at home, get a friend to face away from you and once you touch their arms they can try to elbow you in the face. Like the guys 63 and somehow he can extend half his arm length (it's elbows) to hit you in the face?
One-party consent as a law never made sense to me. Our whole system of governance relies on consent of all parties involved, or at least a majority of. Even the definition itself of consent requires this - in other words 1 party consent = 1 party non-consenting..
It makes me sad that this positive ruling is in a case of a SovCit. It’ll just empower them to believe even harder that their magic incantations are valid.
> Waite disputed that he was a sovereign citizen. “Totally false,” he said. “The only time I ever used the word ‘sovereign’ was to claim my private property is not state sovereignty land.”
Really disappointed in DeSantis. Not that I'm even remotely shocked - he's an outright fascist and this sort of ruling and law is right out of 1984. Let's hope that the Supreme Court strikes down both laws.
[+] [-] aftbit|1 year ago|reply
> One new law makes it illegal after a person has been warned to approach first responders or remain within 25 feet while they are performing a legal duty if the intent is to interfere, threaten or harass them. The new law doesn’t prevent people from recording law enforcement but can require them to move 25 feet back, which can make it more difficult.
> The other requires that citizen review boards in Florida – intended to provide independent oversight of law enforcement actions – be re-established so that members are appointed by a sheriff or police chief and that at least one member be a retired law enforcement officer.
I wonder if the first will stand up to Constitutional review. I imagine there are many First Amendment protected purposes for recording that may require the recorder to be within 25 feet of the officer. For example, if they're recording during windy conditions and need to hear what the officer says. I also wonder how the "intent" will be interpreted by courts. Probably in a way that is most favorable to LEOs.
The second law is just a straightforward neutering of citizen review boards.
[+] [-] morkalork|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] vkou|1 year ago|reply
If you take a few steps back, he can, of course, repeat this process ad-infinitum.
Sure, you can argue this in a Florida court, and you might even win, but in the meantime, the law accomplishes exactly what it intends.
[+] [-] renewiltord|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] dmichulke|1 year ago|reply
> the intent [..] to interfere, threaten or harass them
?
[+] [-] user_7832|1 year ago|reply
It may be possible to stand 25ft back and hold a 15ft long pole with a camera, or place a phone/camera on the ground and then stand back, to get past this issue.
[+] [-] jimbob45|1 year ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] ImJamal|1 year ago|reply
It says reestablished. How are they neutering something that doesn't exist?
[+] [-] qwerpy|1 year ago|reply
I think this makes sense. Would be bad if every time a police officer tries to stop a crime, suddenly 20 hard of hearing people need to crowd around him really close in order to record him. Oh look, the criminal got away again. There are situations where different laws will conflict, and I hope in those situations crime prevention and safety take precedence.
Modern phone cameras are really good and 25 feet isn't very far. Seems like a good compromise so that cops can do their jobs but there can be some citizen oversight.
[+] [-] modeless|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] k8svet|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] jojobas|1 year ago|reply
Funnily, the phrasing "may be recorded" is not interpreted by the corporations as "the customer may be recording as well" and in many cases their default policy is to not talk to you if you've declared you're recording. Single-party consent jurisdictions make it even more muddy.
[+] [-] morkalork|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] callalex|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] dandrew5|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] kevin_thibedeau|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] smeej|1 year ago|reply
Only a couple times have I used it on purpose, but it has triggered on me accidentally a handful of times over the years, usually in weird situations like in my car (older cars, with Bluetooth-only car phone systems). Makes everybody nervous, myself included.
[+] [-] mmmBacon|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] JumpCrisscross|1 year ago|reply
In some jurisdictions, all that is required is an audible beep (or even no notice at all). In others, full consent [1].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telephone_call_recording_laws#...
[+] [-] madcoderme|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] noman-land|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] kristofferR|1 year ago|reply
So they are giving you explicit permission to record the call if they say the call may be recorded.
[+] [-] colechristensen|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] gamepsys|1 year ago|reply
As someone living in a two party consent state that is not Florida I am curious if this precedent will carry weight in my home state.
[+] [-] smeej|1 year ago|reply
> Waite surrendered after a detective shocked him with an electrical device.
> “Waite did not demonstrate a lack of good faith and should have complied without resorting to violence,” the judges said.
Love this double standard. Armed men can show up at your door, shackle your wrists behind your back, and haul you off to a cage, all in bad faith, but if you resort to meeting violence with violence, you're the one who gets sentenced.
[+] [-] Cacti|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] leggomuhgreggo|1 year ago|reply
Sounds about right.
I was worried that this referred to personal conversations and was about to say "dang have we gone too far?" but yeah this makes sense.
Probably goes without saying but — we don't want to condemn/bastardize/immiserate the entire institution...
[+] [-] yareal|1 year ago|reply
Prior to uniformed police, communities maintained order themselves -- often through night watches in which everyone participated, or eventually through hiring people to "cover my watch".
Police in the modern era have been used as a threat of violence against common people more or less since their inception in the 1800s, from slave patrols to strikebreaking. They've been used as political assassins killing the political opponents of the state (see Frederick Hampton) to the systematic oppression of gay and trans people (see, for instance, Stonewall inn). Lest these feel like old examples, just this year police shut down a gay bar in Seattle for having "indecent apparel" being worn by the gay men in attendance.
I think it's absolutely fair for people to think critically about the history and legacy of the institution and wonder, is this the best institution we can imagine to fill this role? Are there better ways to imagine the roles it fills today? Are there systemic issues that need fixing with it?
The reason I bring this forward is that any thoughtful critique of the institution is often painted broadly as, "you are just an anarchist who cannot think beyond your slogans!" Perhaps the institution could do with some immiseration.
[+] [-] RyanAdamas|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] Ajay-p|1 year ago|reply
Seems very fair to me.
[+] [-] matheusmoreira|1 year ago|reply
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sousveillance
[+] [-] judge2020|1 year ago|reply
In public, you have no expectation of privacy - so anyone can film anyone, government or non-government. That would be most police activity. Any other police activity - such as when raiding a home - would be subject to standard legal review in terms of admission into discovery and whatnot.
[+] [-] romafirst3|1 year ago|reply
This makes sense cause the public official doesn't have an expectation of privacy when they are performing their official duties. That makes sense. Nothing they should be doing when they are conversing with a member of the public should be private to them (unless it is private to the person they are talking to - and if it's private to someone else then they probably shouldn't be sharing it with the person recording).
[+] [-] blendo|1 year ago|reply
“Waite emailed his recording of the call to the sheriff's office records department and requested an internal investigation. A month later, Waite was accused of five counts of illegal wiretapping for recording the conversation with the sergeant and four other calls with sheriff’s employees.“
[+] [-] johnisgood|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] rtkwe|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] nntwozz|1 year ago|reply
Just common sense really.
Just sayin'
[+] [-] o11c|1 year ago|reply
But most states - whether one-party or two-party - do not require consent to record a broad swathe of exceptions (particularly extortion, but not just that). Exact laws vary quite a bit - honestly one of the worst things about America is how different laws (of all sorts) can be in different jurisdictions.
[+] [-] gamepsys|1 year ago|reply
For example, I think it's awful that in some places it's legal to privately tell you friend about a mental health struggle you are having, and for that friend to, without your knowledge, share a recording of that conversation with other people. In my mind two party consent is a basic data-privacy law. You cannot create a record of something you expected to be private. You can have an expectation of a private conversation to be private.
[+] [-] avsteele|1 year ago|reply
Some states are single party consent, some two, some might be more subtle.
[+] [-] lesuorac|1 year ago|reply
I would love to know how the deputy is grabbing arms. I mean try this at home, get a friend to face away from you and once you touch their arms they can try to elbow you in the face. Like the guys 63 and somehow he can extend half his arm length (it's elbows) to hit you in the face?
[+] [-] sans_souse|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] alsetmusic|1 year ago|reply
https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/ideo...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_citizen_movement
[+] [-] smeej|1 year ago|reply
Good news! It's not.
[+] [-] pif|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] aiejrilawj|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] more_corn|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] can16358p|1 year ago|reply
Just why?
[+] [-] chad42|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] NickC25|1 year ago|reply
Really disappointed in DeSantis. Not that I'm even remotely shocked - he's an outright fascist and this sort of ruling and law is right out of 1984. Let's hope that the Supreme Court strikes down both laws.
Can't wait to vote his ass out of office.